I notice HMI Justin Russell has published an alarming report highlighting serious failings in a key part of the work of Probation. This from the press release:-
Serious Further Offences (SFO) Annual report – assessments of risk of harm remain inaccurate and incomplete
HM Inspectorate of Probation has published its second annual report of Serious Further Offence (SFO) reviews, finding that assessments of the risk of harm people on probation pose remain inaccurate and incomplete – not enough is being done to stop them reoffending and SFO reviews remain below the expected standard.
Serious Further Offences (SFOs) are specific violent and sexual offences like murder, manslaughter and rape committed by people who are, or were recently, under probation supervision. Over 500 SFOs are notified to HMPPS every year and for the victims and families affected the impact and consequences cannot be underestimated.
The vast majority of SFO reviews are conducted by HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) itself. The Inspectorate is occasionally requested, by the Secretary of State for Justice, to conduct an independent SFO review, and has this year published reports into the review of the case of Damien Bendall and the review of the case of Jordan McSweeney.
For this annual report, we looked at 20 per cent (86 cases) of the SFO reviews conducted by local probation regions between April 2022 and April 2023 – 30 of these involved a serious further offence of murder, and 20 of rape. In comparison to last year’s findings, it was concerning to see that we have seen the percentage of reviews we rated as of either ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ quality reduced from 69 to 52 per cent.
Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell said: “It is disappointing to see the quality of satisfactory reviews of serious further offences conducted by the Probation Service reduce by nearly 20 per cent. It is clear, both from the SFO cases we have looked at and our own independent SFO reviews, that the Probation Service must strive to do a better job of consistently and accurately identifying the minority of people on probation at risk of causing serious harm. And learning the lessons from these very concerning incidents.
“This will involve using all available information, to properly assess and monitor risk, with public protection at the forefront of planning and decision making. I hope that our recommendations, and those from our recent independent SFO reviews, will mean improvements that future lead to high-quality probation services that can safeguard potential victims and keep people safe.”
Of the cases covered by the 86 SFO reviews we analysed, we found:
This annual report makes a number of recommendations for improving the quality of SFO reviews, including revising the operating model used to produce them and maximising the way that learning is shared.
HM Inspectorate of Probation has published its second annual report of Serious Further Offence (SFO) reviews, finding that assessments of the risk of harm people on probation pose remain inaccurate and incomplete – not enough is being done to stop them reoffending and SFO reviews remain below the expected standard.
Serious Further Offences (SFOs) are specific violent and sexual offences like murder, manslaughter and rape committed by people who are, or were recently, under probation supervision. Over 500 SFOs are notified to HMPPS every year and for the victims and families affected the impact and consequences cannot be underestimated.
The vast majority of SFO reviews are conducted by HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) itself. The Inspectorate is occasionally requested, by the Secretary of State for Justice, to conduct an independent SFO review, and has this year published reports into the review of the case of Damien Bendall and the review of the case of Jordan McSweeney.
For this annual report, we looked at 20 per cent (86 cases) of the SFO reviews conducted by local probation regions between April 2022 and April 2023 – 30 of these involved a serious further offence of murder, and 20 of rape. In comparison to last year’s findings, it was concerning to see that we have seen the percentage of reviews we rated as of either ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ quality reduced from 69 to 52 per cent.
Chief Inspector of Probation Justin Russell said: “It is disappointing to see the quality of satisfactory reviews of serious further offences conducted by the Probation Service reduce by nearly 20 per cent. It is clear, both from the SFO cases we have looked at and our own independent SFO reviews, that the Probation Service must strive to do a better job of consistently and accurately identifying the minority of people on probation at risk of causing serious harm. And learning the lessons from these very concerning incidents.
“This will involve using all available information, to properly assess and monitor risk, with public protection at the forefront of planning and decision making. I hope that our recommendations, and those from our recent independent SFO reviews, will mean improvements that future lead to high-quality probation services that can safeguard potential victims and keep people safe.”
Of the cases covered by the 86 SFO reviews we analysed, we found:
- 44 per cent of the risk of harm assessments were inaccurate or incomplete
- 42 per cent of the offences were committed by a person on probation who had been assessed as posing only a medium risk of serious harm before the offence happened. 44 per cent were committed by an individual assessed as posing a high risk of serious harm (this is up from 33 per cent last year)
- 42 per cent were managed under Multi-Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA).
This annual report makes a number of recommendations for improving the quality of SFO reviews, including revising the operating model used to produce them and maximising the way that learning is shared.
--oo00oo--
From the Report :-
Chief Inspectors Overview
Between April 2022 and April 2023, we quality assured a total of 86 reviews – approximately 20 per cent of the total produced by the Probation Service over this period. Concerningly, we have seen the percentage of reviews we rated either ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ reducing from 69 to 52 per cent compared with the previous year’s findings. I was also concerned to see an increase in the proportion of reviews that relate to people on probation who had previously been assessed as high risk and who therefore should have been subject to the highest and most robust standard of supervision by the service.
More needs to be done to improve the quality of SFO reviews and the work that the service does to assess and manage the risk of serious harm to the public from people on probation. The Probation Service needs to ensure that it produces high quality SFO reviews that identify all available learning and support practitioners to improve the way they manage risk of serious harm. Our quality assurance work is demonstrating that this is not being done consistently, with notable regional differences in the quality of the SFO reviews being produced.
Last year, I raised concerns about the grade and independence of those undertaking SFO reviews, given that these reviews are carried out by middle managers from within the region in which the SFO itself occurred. Given the results of our quality assurance of reviews over the past year, my concerns have, if anything, increased and I would recommend that HMPPS give serious consideration to ensuring that reviews, certainly those involving the most serious incidents, are conducted by more senior staff from a different region to that in which the offence occurred.
Earlier this year we also published two independent reviews into the cases of Damien Bendall and Jordan McSweeney. Both identified serious concerns in relation to risk assessment, workload, management oversight, professional curiosity, case allocation and case management. These findings mirror the concerns identified within the broader range of SFO reviews we quality assure and those of our local probation inspections.
Positively, HMPPS accepted each of the 27 recommendations that we made in the Bendall and McSweeney reviews, many of which centre on needing to improve the assessment and management of the risks of serious harm. I hope that the recommendations in this annual report, and those from our independent reviews, will result in the urgently needed improvements that can lead to high-quality services that safeguard potential victims and keep people safe.
Justin Russell
HM Chief Inspector of Probation
This report has highlighted a decline in the overall standard of the SFO reviews quality assured this year, with the numbers rated as ‘Outstanding’ or ‘Good’ reducing from 69 per cent to 52 per cent.
We emphasised in last year's annual report that more work was needed to improve the overall quality of SFO reviews, therefore this year’s findings place an even greater emphasis on this.
SFO reviewers are not sufficiently considering practice at all levels, and this failure to consider whether systemic or procedural factors underpin poor practice is also impacting on how well all learning opportunities are identified. There has been a notable decline in the quality of both the learning and victim elements of SFO reviews, both of which are key factors in meeting the overall aim of these reviews.
We published two independent reviews this year, which made a total of 27 recommendations to support HMPPS in making critical changes and improving how people on probation are managed in the community. Each of these recommendations has been accepted by HMPPS.
Recurring practice deficits are being identified through the SFO process, many of which also correlate with the findings of the local inspections and those from the two independent reviews we published. This raises further concerns that SFO reviews are not fulfilling their aim or potential in driving forward change and preventing practice deficits from reoccurring.
Our work over the forthcoming year aims to support HMPPS in driving improvements in the quality of SFOs reviews, as well as monitoring how well the action plans are implemented and effect change. It is imperative that SFO reviews meet the expected standard so that victims and their families have a transparent overview of the practice in the case and relevant learning can be taken forward effectively and drive change.
We make the following recommendations to HMPPS to improve to the quality of SFO reviews:
1. promptly review the SFO review document format to maximise the opportunity to produce high quality and informative SFO reviews that meet the needs of victims and their families
2. ensure that the learning identified is translated into meaningful and impactful actions
3. ensure that where applicable, all learning linked to the Probation partnership working is identified and shared with the relevant agencies
4. develop a process to ensure that learning from SFO reviews is fed back into the organisation to inform and shape developments within probation regions and more widely across HMPPS
5. ensure that robust and rigorous countersigning takes place on all SFO reviews before they are submitted for quality assurance
6. put robust processes in place to ensure that, following quality assurance feedback, all required changes to the SFO review document are made timely and to a sufficient standard.
7. SFO reviews, particularly those of the most serious offences, should where possible be undertaken by a separate probation region to that responsible for supervising the case at the time of the SFO. And consideration should be given to raising the grade of SFO reviewers, particularly for the most serious or complex cases.
Speaking of risk assessments...
ReplyDeletehttps://committees.parliament.uk/publications/40412/documents/197199/default/
Matter referred on 21 April 2022 (conduct of Rt Hon Boris Johnson): Final Report
Let's just cut to the chase:
ReplyDelete*** SFO reviews are not fulfilling their aim or potential in driving forward change and preventing practice deficits from reoccurring. ***
ergo, hmpps is NOT fit for purpose.
"where possible be undertaken by a separate probation region to that responsible for supervising the case at the time of the SFO. And consideration should be given to raising the grade of SFO reviewers"
Not good enough, Justin. The chumocracy runs deep through the probation service. I have argued long & hard for independent, multidisciplinary panels to conduct SFO reviews including reps from social services, police, mental health, probation, housing.
"Over 500 SFOs are notified to HMPPS every year"
Previously...
2011: "134 dangerous or sexual offenders charged with a serious further offence last year"
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/500-000-crimes-a-year-by-repeat-offenders-2376582.html
In 2013-2014, the year prior to the changes introduced by Grayling, there were 429 SFO reviews completed by the probation trusts.
MoJ Bulletin: "Annual increases in the number of SFOs from 2010/11 to 2013/14 were broadly in line with increases in the number of MAPPA-eligible offenders over this period."
517 mandatory serious further offence reviews were carried out in 2016-17
627 mandatory serious further offence reviews were carried out in 2017-18
577 SFO notifications in 2019/20
499 SFOs in 2020/21
Total SFO notifications received in 2021/22 was 529.
Many will cry "foul" as seismic changes occurred during that timescale, NPS/CRC & back again + the criteria changed regularly over the years, so it is admittedly akin to comparing apples with bananas
Isn’t it about time for senior leaders to consider their positions now? Putting aside views about all the changes, these Inspection reports provide sufficient evidence that the probation service is in real decline. Despite all the fiddling and restructuring the evidence is now overwhelmingly clear. This level of failure should result in resignations or dismissal. Enough staff have suffered and now the real failures need to recognise that times up.
ReplyDeleteAnd I am aware of a group of highly experienced self-employed POs who put a proposal (with evidence of it working) to improve risk assessments and risk management plans (OASys) to NPS management and the Workforce Planning group declined to use it on the basis that it was not on their agenda at this time - this indicates complete incompetence at higher management level and an unwillingness to consider ideas from those who know
ReplyDeleteIn the Probation Service only senior managers and their friends are allowed to have ideas. It’s how it’s always been and how it always will be.
Deletehttps://www-bbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-65479515.amp?amp_gsa=1&_js_v=a9&usqp=mq331AQIUAKwASCAAgM%3D#amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&aoh=16868562872613&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&share=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fuk-england-leicestershire-65479515
ReplyDeleteI agree with Justin Russell when he observes that not enough is being done to prevent people from reoffending.
ReplyDeleteAll the focus appears to be on managing risk rather then reducing risk, which in turn leads to probation staff becoming ever more risk adverse and rising recall rates, and in my view that mix doesn't achieve very much for anyone.
It's a given that SFOs are always going to occur. Risk is dynamic which makes it difficult to predict and manage, but to reduce the frequency of SFOs the focus needs to be on risk reduction rather then risk management.
An interesting article in Inside Time last week discussed how the number of people being assessed as high or very high risk is increasing, and the number of those being assessed as low risk is falling.
If probation is indeed now a risk management service, then as someone who believes there are far too many people being subjected to probation supervision, then why bother pushing those that present a low risk into the probation machine at all? Use the resources that the low risk dont need to reduce the risk that the high risk present?
https://insidetime.org/more-people-now-rated-high-risk-by-hmpps/
'Getafix
Totally agree, paranoia about risk, make people high risk just in case something goes wrong. If it does the managers can claim it the PO/PSO fault
DeleteWhy does the Chief Inspector feel that more senior staff would do a better job of assessing risk,in my experience people become senior staff so that they don’t have to asses risk on a daily basis anymore, seniority rarely equates to ‘better’
ReplyDeleteI agree, but to be fair the job of SPO is not to be 'better' but to help the officer be better via the consultantancy/supervisory process.
DeleteMore managers isn’t a solution for much. They like filling the PDUs with managers to make senior managers feel confident and important. Filling the SLTs with senior managers makes chief officers feel confident and important. The power game plays out and everyone ignoring most of those managers and senior managers are incompetent as they come.
Delete“but to be fair the job of SPO is not to be 'better' but to help the officer be better via the consultantancy/supervisory process.”
DeleteNo it’s to allocate work while hiding behind the tightly shut doors of their little offices.
In the real world it’s usually because SPOs are excellent at covering their backs and how many staff have seen SPOs running to their managers to validate a decision that they are thinking of making
DeleteProbation is not doing itself any favours by not addressing the amount of cases a PO might hold. Instead, the emphasis is on how they manage the cases and by dint of probability, any one of these cases could turn into an SFO. I don't think the culture at PDUs helps either: existing relationships, deals to come in two days a week; playing POs off against each other by insecure and Machiavellian SPOs. Sicknesses by SPOs doesn't seem to have the same HR concerns as if POs unfortunately get ill. I had one daft SPO tell me what do I really need a manager for? Well, that's another conversation. But probably to sign things off; give support; pastoral care; a bit of encouragement; some reassurance. Doing yourself out of a job by defending bare minimum management is pretty silly. Humans are funny creatures. We can get all the NQOs and PQIPs (who have some of the most vastly inconsistent experiences of training, rather than any uniformity- also dependent on face fitting, supportive PTAs and often sheer luck, along with hard work) but ultimately, the experienced people don't come back. Who can blame them? There seems to be little improvement- just director level assurances that recruitment is a top priority- but the training is all over the shop. Some do a PAROM; some don't. Some do court placements.... others don't. NQOs get good cases, others get the dregs of what a favoured NQO might not want palmed off by the SPO onto another NQO. It's part of the reason why people quit or feel hard done by. There is often no rhyme or reason or communication for why. Allocations of cases: these seem to be some sort of alchemy. SFOs are a lottery- nothing more. If we could predict crime before it happens then we would in a remake of Minority Report or doing other criminal justice agencies out of a job. Lessons will be learned. Well, you would hope so. But I didn't put the gun or knife into that person's hand. Besides, I had 47 other cases to worry about and perhaps I missed that Delius document or registration because I was exhausted or dealing with yet another unplanned errant behaviour of another POP- quite likely with PD unformulated because the PD psychologist is burdened with scores of cases requiring screening and they're a small team trying to do their best. The Lord's work is a thankless task. Made more thankless by an unrealistic expectation to be all things to all cases. If only I was the human form of algorithm- I wouldn't have feelings or feel tired and I could tick boxes and warehouse offenders with my fingers crossed they don't increase their risk. Still we shake the elephant in the room's hand and then never notice he's still there once we've left.
ReplyDeleteProbation is not the Lord's work, it's a fool's game and the sooner you realise that the better
Delete“The Lord's work is a thankless task”
DeleteIf there was ever an example of how bad probation officer selection and recruitment is. Probation work is not “the lords work” and too many in probation feel they’re holier than thou and should not be telling others how to live their lives.
Perhaps for 06:08 that’s how they view their work and that’s ok, diversity and inclusion anyone? Perhaps it was simply a turn of phrase? How quick we judge each other.
DeleteNo that’s not ok.
Deletehttps://www.gov.uk/government/news/parole-board-chief-executives-blog-june-2023
ReplyDeleteIf senior staff and our excellent leaders are sooooo good how come Probation is in such a mess? Something lacking in the Inspector’s own assessments me thinks!
ReplyDeleteJustin is a paid-up member of the career chumocracy; he can't bring himself to criticise his chums; his equivalence is beyond parody.
Delete"Justin started his career as a social researcher in the Home Office and has worked on a wide range of criminal justice issues including as a Senior Policy Adviser on home affairs in the No 10 Policy Unit and as Head of the Violent Crime Unit in the Home Office where he led the Ending Gang and Youth Violence Programme and the government’s strategy on ending violence against women and girls. From 2012 to 2016 he was a Director at the Department for Work and Pensions where he led the production of the 2013 White Paper on state pension reform and was Director for disability employment and support."
Of the hmi probation senior team:
5 / 11 have probation/youth justice backgrounds
Most - but not all - have been closely involved with &/or allied to the chumocracy on their journey to hmip.
https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmiprobation/about-hmi-probation/chief-inspector-senior-management-team/
Its such a small world with charismatic bullies at every turn, it would be difficult for any one individual to hold truth to power, especially when the boss is such a wet flannel.
This is how hmpps define themselves on their website:
ReplyDelete"What we do
HM Prison and Probation Service (HMPPS) is to here to prevent victims by changing lives.
We work with our partners to carry out the sentences given by the courts, either in custody or the community.
We reduce reoffending by rehabilitating the people in our care through education and employment."
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-prison-and-probation-service/about#responsibilities
So we do nothing then?
DeleteHas anyone resigned yet ho ho ho…
ReplyDelete13+ years of Lies, Liars, Cheats, Thieves, Charlatans & Criminals
ReplyDeleteAnd still the tory govt holds power while dismissing any & all suggestions of law-breaking, greed, incompetence or wrong-doing, or any form of bias that enriches & ennobles themselves & their chums at the expense of those not on their 'guest list'.
I wonder of the RSR scores for all of these SFO indicated the individuals to be high risk of serious recidivism? Given the tools allegedly high predictive power you might think so, but I doubt it.
ReplyDeleteI really resent the tone of this report...somehow insinuating that if the person was assessed as medium, the assessment was somehow flawd and inaccurate....
52 per cent were rated as either ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’
ReplyDeleteso the remaining 48% were useless.
"44 per cent of the risk of harm assessments were inaccurate or incomplete" - inaccurate with hindsight? Or contemporaneously inaccurate?
"42 per cent of the offences were committed by a person on probation who had been assessed as posing only a medium risk of serious harm before the offence happened" - no surprises there:
* cross the criminal justice threshold once & the next offence is easier to execute, with every chance it might be an escalation
* exposure to more sophisticated criminally active others at probation offices, on upw details, in court buildings, jail, etc
* how many serious offences are committed by those without any previous offending history? How does that figure compare with perpetrators of a SFO?
* any semblance of integrity of probation risk assessments was fatally corrupted by the TR project, the monetisation of risk & the trading of caseloads
* probation risk assessments were intrinsically flawed from the get-go, being devised/designed/imposed by a prison service psychologist & hampered by unbelievably crap IT.
* Plus we have "too many in probation [who] feel they’re holier than thou and should not be telling others how to live their lives." (see post at 12:01 above)
someone must know the answer:
Deletehow many serious offences are committed by those without any previous offending history? How does that figure compare with perpetrators of a SFO?
Just read the following article on the Probation Institute website on recruitment and retention.
ReplyDeleteI thought it made some interesting observations, and they might also be of interest to Annon@ 06:08 17th June above.
https://www.probation-institute.org/news/the-point-of-no-return
'Getafix
To save you all a monotonous read. It concludes with what we already know and what will never happen for at least decade or more.
Delete“This presents a real opportunity for the Probation Service, to learn lessons from those who have left to assist with retention and regain a pool of talent that, with the best of intentions, cannot be replaced through the large-scale recruitment of trainee probation officers.”
It’s been a decade since TR and we’re further down the pan then we ever were. Try stripping out the top tier of senior managers, pay better wages, cease and desist OneHMPPS, separate from prisons and the police, stop dumbing down the training and we may have some progress.
oh my, I'm just loving the commons debate on the privileges committee report about the Liar-In-Chief. Some excellent speeches, some dramatic moments, some magnificent fails.
ReplyDeleteThis service is going to hell in a hell cart! Has been for years. Drowning it in SPO’s with little experience and PQUIP’s (with no support) is doing absolutely nothing to assist those on the front line drowning in their never ending to do lists, too many cases, hundreds of pointless emails and a feeling they can’t take any more! Probation have buried their head in the sand for years - waving goodbye to experienced staff who’ve had enough like they mean nothing then complaining and blame gaming when they get SFO’s. There’s creativity out there which could help with the short falls in risk assessments, experience and so on but the service has no clue how to operate or do business with partnerships to make those necessary changes. Instead they just do what they’ve always done - nothing.
ReplyDeleteLet’s not ignore the problem of too many SPOs that have been in post way too long and with too much of the wrong experience. I much prefer the new SPOs with fresh ideas.
Deletehmpps/probation do nothing to address the problems of day-to-day operations, i.e. the probation task - but they spend plenty of time allocating blame elsewhere while patting themselves on the back & finding money to fund new roles for themselves & their chums.
Deletehmi probation don't help much either. While they identify & quantify problems, they continue to massage the egos of the senior managers.
"the percentage of reviews we rated as of either ‘Good’ or ‘Outstanding’ quality reduced from 69 to 52 per cent."
But even 69% isn't good enough is it? It means 31% of reviews are shite.
What business model could survive if *** 30% *** of its output went straight in the bin?
"Acceptable quality level (AQL): AQL is typically considered to be the worst quality level that is still considered satisfactory.
AQL Defects - Instances of failure to meet customer quality requirements are termed as defects. In practice, there are three categories of defects:
Critical defects: Defects that, when accepted, could harm users. Such defects are unacceptable. Critical defects are defined as 0% AQL.
Major defects: Defects usually not acceptable by the end-users, as they are likely to result in failure. The AQL for major defects is 2.5%.
Minor defects: Defects not likely to reduce materially the usability of the product for its intended purpose but that differ from specified standards; some end users will still buy such products. The AQL for minor defects is 4%"
ISO 2859
What might probation tasks be rated as? Critical?
None . It's all gone
Delete"due for sentence in March, Recorder Eric Lamb granted an adjournment so that a background psychiatric report could be prepared ... the defendant’s mental health was a key to explaining why the defendant offended as she did. The background included a trauma and ongoing struggles with her mental health. Following the death of her grandfather, she had “detached herself” from her feelings.
ReplyDeleteThis was made worse when she was served with an eviction notice. The barrister said: “She’s dedicated her life working and caring for others. This behaviour was completely out of character.”
Recorder Eric Lamb said he accepted the defendant had shown genuine remorse.
The woman, who torched her caravan as part of a high-risk £28,000 insurance scam, has been jailed for six years."
In other sentencing news...
"Between August 2021 and September 2022, he committed 15 offences in Birmingham, with three women being repeatedly targeted. He was also charged with an offence that happened in Derby in 2016. He pleaded guilty to all 16 sexual assaults when he appeared in court in March 2023.
Today (13 June) he was sentenced to four years and six months in jail and will be on the Sex Offenders Register for life."
For those interested on the HoC vote last night:
ReplyDeleteMembers voting No
Cash, Sir William
Fletcher, Nick
Holloway, Adam
McCartney, Karl
Morrissey, Joy
Wheeler, Mrs Heather
No not interested!
DeleteLink to Hansard account of the debate
ReplyDeletehttps://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-06-19/debates/E15A1DF8-31A1-4FEF-B007-3CBF444BAA11/PrivilegeConductOfRightHonBorisJohnson
Sir Passive-Aggressive Bully Boy put in his place:
DeleteSir Jacob Rees-Mogg
(North East Somerset) (Con)
I wonder whether the right hon. and learned Lady could say something of her own position in relation to the precedent set by a judicial Committee of the House of Lords, when a decision in which Lord Hoffmann was involved was set aside not because he was biased, but because of the perception of bias. In relation to her famous tweets, how does she think she met the Hoffmann test?
Ms Harriet Harman
(Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) (Chair of the Privileges Committee)
I am happy to answer the right hon. Gentleman. I was appointed by this House in the expectation that I would chair the Committee, with no one speaking against it. After the tweets were brought to light and highlighted, as I am concerned about the perception of fairness on the Committee — I agree that perception matters — I made it my business to find out whether it would mean that the Government would not have confidence in me if I continued to chair the Committee. I actually said, “I will be more than happy to step aside, because perception matters and I do not want to do this if the Government do not have confidence in me. I need the whole House to have confidence in the work that it has mandated.” I was assured that I should continue the work that the House had mandated, and with the appointment that the House had put me into, and so I did just that.
Dame Angela eagle: "According to reports over the weekend, Boris Johnson believes that he left Parliament in a “blaze of glory”. He has left in disgrace. He has run from accountability for his lies and untruths. There has been no self-reflection, no apology, no acceptance of a shred of responsibility, just the narcissistic howl of a man-child who will not see that he has only himself to blame."
DeleteI'm posting these to show probation staff that if they stand up to the bullies then the reality of the situation, hidden from view by the craven incompetents, can be revealed; the truth can be spoken.
Liar johnson & his cabal of lickspittle acolytes are on their way out precisely because some people had the courage & the fortitude to stand up to them, to call them out & to be vindicated.
Organise & make yourselves strong. Put pressure on Justin & others to call out the pisspoor performance of a desperate band of liars, cheats & incompetents. Reclaim your profession.
Labour has bullies too !
DeleteSeems obvious to me that just 354 out of 650 MPs - regardless of their political affiliation - value honesty & integrity.
DeleteThere are bullies in every walk of life; they just need to be dealt with.
Where is the response from the powers that be explaining that the majority of us work bloody hard despite a culture of bullying, repeated threats and a complete disregard for our well-being despite being exposed to vicarious trauma on a daily basis? I have given up with the amount of times I have had to point out the obvious to a manager .. honestly infuriating and so disheartening. I love this job but the current situation is utterly untenable.
ReplyDeleteThis is 2023 right? There is no dress code or uniform. Probation staff can wear whatever they want. Yet every summer we all witness the same tedious discussions. Why oh why do Probation staff always need to be told what to do. You want to wear sandals, ripped jeans and a sombrero to work, well go for it if it makes you happy!
ReplyDelete“Hi, can anyone provide any details regarding dress code, maybe agreed by Napo, for community probation offices, particularly in hot weather. can/should men be able to wear shorts and trainers? strappy summer dresses ok? its a discussion point in our team right now and the policy is quite vague. thanks”
We’re slowly rising towards a 40 degree heatwave. I work in a probation office with no drinking water, piss poor air conditioning and very few windows. The last thing I’m concerned about is a snotty managers far-fetched health and safety concerns about my flip flops.
Yes, yes, John Paul and Honor Blackman would disagree with me.
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0159904/mediaviewer/rm3561548033/?ref_=tt_md_1
I read that on fb too. Well I’m wearing shorts, trainers and a strappy dress today!! There’s no policy. Wear what I want.
DeleteThey often try and impose an expectation of dress . We have discussed it before on the blog it goes nowhere. How subjective is it when the managers took exception to a dress a good few years back. Instead of dealing with the one odd issue they react to dress us all in slacks and a pullover.
DeleteWhen Napo had effective reps it was squashed in our area.
So survivalist managers can dress how they like but we are expected to dress “appropriately”, although the “manager” that addressed me couldn’t define what appropriate meant specifically but inferred I was almost promiscuous. I am not promiscuous and will wear what I see fit tomorrow. Are G4 esk style uniforms around the corner,
ReplyDeleteIt’s not just managers it’s colleagues do it too. Anyone overly concerned with what others are wearing are best avoided. We’re not in the school playground and telling people what to wear is insulting. I doubt there will ever be a uniform for probation. Except for formal dress for courts and parole hearings we wear whatever we want.
DeleteThat’s exactly what I did, asked the manager to define “appropriate” and provide examples I could look at and learn from. Obviously they couldn’t without risking a #MeToo complaint and the conversation ended there. The dress code for Probation is personal preference and individual common sense.
Deletehttps://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/londoners-diary-despair-civil-service-dress-codes-huel-trainer-ban-happy-valley-brad-pitt-margot-robbie-b1052794.html
ReplyDelete"since Jeremy Hunt became Chancellor, trainers have been forbidden in the Treasury."
https://www.guardiansupport.co.uk/blog/dress-code-guidance-issued-by-the-government/
"Nicola Thorp started a petition demanding that it be made illegal for businesses to enforce a rule that it’s mandatory for women to wear heels in the workplace. This came after she was sent home from her temporary job for wearing flats rather than heels – stated as unreasonable dress code. The petition attracted over 150,000 signatures, yet it was rejected by parliament."
In 2018, the Government published new guidance on Dress Codes and Sex Discrimination:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/709535/dress-code-guidance-may2018-2.pdf
https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/offenders-don-high-vis-jackets-27176322
ReplyDeleteI’m
ReplyDeleteSure there will be a ten page policy designed to belittle probation staff about dress , the service is dreadful
Ca I ask if anyone knows if we are getting the £1500 stated. All quite.
DeleteBlimey! I forgot to put my bra on today. Will I get the sack?
ReplyDeleteIf the staff exodus continues as it has in my office, they'll only need a handful of copies!
ReplyDeleteThis appears to be a developing theme (dress code) and appears to have undertones of racism and sexism. I know of a male black colleague whose dress sense was deemed inappropriate and it sounds like women may be being challenged during the current warm weather. I may be a cynic but this might be driven from the top table as another tightening of the screw. After 8 years as a PO and 7 years as an SPO I am quite frankly tired of the current culture. I will certainly NOT be drawn into challenging colleagues dress sense unless they are attending court or oral hearings, and even then I hope I remain culturally and gender sensitive.
ReplyDeleteI remember black male colleague challenged for wearing a hoodie at work while a white woman colleague was not. A female colleague challenged wearing a tight fitting shirt and nothing said to a male colleague wearing an even tighter fitting T-shirt.
DeleteAs the colleague said above, there is no dress code so wear whatever you want. It’s 2023 not 1923. If asked about dress, hair or any of that oppressive bs tell them to put it in writing and define what is “appropriate” by giving you reference to a specific policy and photographic examples.
Most staff are a bit scruffy a clear dress sense would tidy up the ram shackle look of any office why not if they pay for the shirts .
DeleteDefine “scruffy”. And since we don’t have a nasty little oppressive dress code it’d be inaccurate to regard anything as scruffy.
Delete"Most staff are a bit scruffy" - hahahahahahahahaha!!
DeleteI like that : )
Most staff are a bit scruffy. Defined as poor footwear sandals or scruffy roughed heels in the office some women wear to stumps. Some people wear the same shirt and t shirts 3 days on the trot. Some of the ethnic coverings look like old sheets thrown over a post. There is way too much red green and yellow symbolism in certain parts. The usual wrinkly jackets shiny in the cuffs and drippy egg stain tie. One overweight manager was addressed for profuse sweating and he was awful. Equally a 50 plus larger women in a low cropped open dress often complaining of heat took a tumble and ended up exposing everything embarrassing. In fact a nice shirt white blue whatever with some flat black shoes and slacks would tidy up a corporate look across the areas. Not all the same but similar gives a professional look. Those in McDonald's look better and identifiable as a workforce than anything we don't do anymore.
DeleteWow that’s so offensive 09:53. I worry about people like you that evidently spend alot of time busying themselves about what others wear. What you’ve said does not represent any offices I’ve seen, but you know what there’s a cost of living crisis and my shoes are scuffed too.
Delete“Corporate” for Probation died a long time ago. It’s not Mac Donald’s so no uniform is needed. And personally I’ve seen prison officer uniforms, whether shirt and tie or fleeces, and it’s not pretty either.
Not only will we strive for corporate anonymity & humiliate those we don't like, but we'll chuck in a bit of casual racism for good measure... some fairly strong LiarLiar johnson vibes going on here (letterboxes & piccaninnies, anyone?):
Delete"Some of the ethnic coverings look like old sheets thrown over a post. There is way too much red green and yellow symbolism in certain parts."
Probation assistant roles anyone?
ReplyDeleteFurther to my post at 21:32. I have not had a specific instruction to challenge my team and their chosen dress choice but then I am not flavour of the month as I have challenged other issues at SMM’s. Equally I have not heard anything from likeminded SPO’s so this may be just more examples of the newer qualified SPO’s who feel the need to stamp their authority failing to understand that respect has to be earned.
ReplyDeleteThere is nothing wrong with wearing a T-shirt to work. Trainers and tennis shoes can be practical in offices for many reasons. Rarely will a practitioner turn up at Court in a Bermuda shirt and flip flops.
DeleteIn my experience it is not the newbies that think they can have a say on everything, but the POs and SPOs that have been around long enough to be considered experienced. Especially those that like to sit and gossip about what others are wearing.
Your comment I disagree with “I will certainly NOT be drawn into challenging colleagues dress sense unless they are attending court or oral hearings, and even then I hope I remain culturally and gender sensitive.”
You have already decided that with your 15 years experience it is your place to check and “challenge colleagues dress sense”. It is not!
Next we’ll be talking about hair, tattoos and piercings!
What the hell is a “newer qualified SPO’s”. No SPOs are qualified as SPOs. You must mean a newer qualified po who became an spo, or a newer spo.
DeleteRespect should be automatically granted to each and every member of staff equally, no matter how long in post. Longevity does not equal competency or authority
ReplyDeleteI second that. Sometimes longevity is a sign of gross incompetence. Far too many POs and SPOs prancing around delusional on rose tinted “experience” because of their length of Service or they managed a few MAPPA Level 3 cases.
DeleteThat is ridiculous . Respect is a standard but work knowledge credit people have to learn. That takes real time.
DeleteDon't confuse the two then, respect does NOT have to be earned and it not yours to give, it should be automatic
DeleteRespect should never be automatic. For instance why should I respect someone’s beliefs? I may tolerate it but I don’t have to respect it. I respect the facts not the beliefs…and to follow on, in a work environment experience and expertise are gained over a number of years. A newly qualified PO rushing into an SPO role may have good management skills, but is unlikely to be able to draw upon years of dealing directly with offenders. Or experience as it is often called. In probation this is vital and at least 5 years in role should be a requirement before further promotion. Sadly we have seen for damage inflicted by those who either rush to get promoted or alternatively fail upwards.
DeleteWhen I started- both as a PQIP and a NQO is the predatory sizing up of you as a potential to do the donkey work or give people holiday when they want it or cover cases when they expect it. It's hardly a nurturing environment- i'm put upon, so you will be too. Having the 'audacity' to push back when being treated badly- that left me persona non grata- to this day by petty, bitchy colleagues with more experience, but with less grace than a rutting pig and delusions of grandeur. Having the co-working abused by bullying 'mentors'- you will do all the work and I will get all the credit. It's not the rubbishing of colleagues that's the issue- it's the colleagues behaviour that leads to people voicing their opinion. I thought this was the more left-leaning end of the Criminal Justice System- it's actually often viperous, toxic and lonely. Blame the colleagues that do this, which then causes the divide and conquer. The more experienced should be setting the example, unless the example is wait for more fresh meat and exploit them too. Which it often is the case. Consequential thinking? Impact of your actions on others'- stuff we discuss with POPs all the time. But what about amongst staff?
Delete@13:56 Amen to that ! Tired of these " I qualified when dinosaurs roamed the land " type comments. The world has changed but they haven't and not all for the bad.
ReplyDelete.. I steer well clear of any po or spo that’s been in the office for more than 10 years. Usually they’re the source of the bad practices and discriminatory behaviour. The longer they’ve been there and the more of them there are, the worse it usually is. Sad but true.
DeleteIt’s a sign of an organisation in chaos when colleagues turn on each other.
DeleteYour true enemy is not the person at the next computer screen.
Divide and conquer has been the mantra of the ruling classes since time began.
This blog has a number of themes, one of the most unpleasant is the rubbishing of colleagues. As rightly pointed out @08:26 this merely helps management to divide and rule. And may I say that when people comment along the lines that their observations are “sad but true” they are usually neither. They are merely their immediate observations. Truth requires evidence not speculation.
DeleteI’ve never supported staff that walk around as if they are better than others because of length of service. Not all experience is good experience either !
Delete16:14. It is sad we have these issues. It is true that we have these issues. Observed evidence is considered fact. There are good and bad amongst BOTH newer and older POs and SPOs. I’ve seen much worse amongst the longer term staff and usually they’re the ones that ‘turn’ the newer staff.
DeleteMorning JB; looks like the hmpps apologistas & revisionistas are busy on the blog again poking everyone with sticks & trying to normalise their agenda:
ReplyDelete"Most staff are a bit scruffy a clear dress sense would tidy up the ram shackle look of any office"
"Some people wear the same shirt and t shirts 3 days on the trot. Some of the ethnic coverings look like old sheets thrown over a post. There is way too much red green and yellow symbolism in certain parts."
"a nice shirt white blue whatever with some flat black shoes and slacks would tidy up a corporate look across the areas."
"Sometimes longevity is a sign of gross incompetence."
"Tired of these " I qualified when dinosaurs roamed the land " type comments. The world has changed but they haven't and not all for the bad."
"I steer well clear of any po or spo that’s been in the office for more than 10 years. Usually they’re the source of the bad practices and discriminatory behaviour."
Way-back-when I found the move to trust status offered us the first glimpse of TR, with too many power-hungry suits trying to impress each other & pin medals to their lapels. So much has been destroyed or gone AWOL as a result.
However, I suppose we have to acknowledge that the 35 trusts clearly got some things right:
"...[in 2011] the service became the first public sector organisation to be awarded the British Quality Foundation’s Gold Medal for Excellence in recognition of “outstanding and continued commitment to sustained excellence over a number of years”..."
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-10-16/debates/13101684000570/ProbationService
See also...
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/probation-service-wins-excellence-award
Joe Goasdoue, Chief Executive of the BQF, added: ‘Our Gold Medal is awarded every year to an organisation which stands out as a shining example of excellence to others.’
But wait, what's this?
BQF: with £9K a year membership fees they're not quite the ***independent*** assessor of achievement we've been led to believe.
"Our ambition is to help any individual, team or organisation build sustainable capability to achieve their excellence goals [for a fee] and become formally recognised [by us] for the outcomes and standards they achieve."
Yet another stunning garment from the Emperor's New Clothes collection
Oh dear 20.46
ReplyDeleteWith you 09:45. Who needs experience when you have Primark?
DeleteDon’t fool yourselves. Experience and length of service does not always equal professionalism and good practitioner. In fact in many cases staff a few years in are much better.
DeleteLAST CHANCE: @HMIProbation
ReplyDeleteis recruiting for Welsh speaking fee paid inspectors to undertake work as needed on our probation and youth offending inspection programmes in Wales. Find out more about these roles and apply by 30 June 2023: https://justiceinspectorates.gov.uk
Theres 3 times as many people on probation as there are in prison. Far too many given theres no benefit for them being there in the first place.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.unison.org.uk/news/press-release/2023/06/unmanageable-probation-workloads-putting-the-public-at-risk-warn-unions/
'Getafix
What they say: "In June 2014, 35 probation trusts were abolished, and probation work was divided between two separate organisations..."
DeleteWhat they don't say: Between 2015 & 2019 - despite Grayling's assurances & a national agreement reached with MoJ - hundreds of staff were "released" by the privately owned CRCs under various severance arrangements, most being cheated out of their entitlement to enhanced redundancy payments.
What they say: "After a long campaign by Napo, UNISON and GMB the service was eventually re-unified into public ownership in June 2021."
What they don't say: After the inevitable disaster that was TR, the govt had no choice other than to cut the privatisation experiment short. So yes, Probation staff may have been re-unified, but not in the independent organisation they came from. moj/hmpps enacted yet another transfer of employment scam upon probation staff whereby they are now trapped inside hmpps as ersatz civil servants.
Napo: “It would be all too easy for this much-needed campaign to be seen as a negative move from the probation unions... Probation can and must do better with the right levels of investment”
No, it doesn't sound very supportive; in fact it sounds more like a hmpps press release.
£80k a year from members' coffers...
Some pre-Trust statistics
Deletehttps://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20110204195536/http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/noms-performance-ratings-08-09.htm